chrismoyles.net
- Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:40 pm
#233888
Standards cases
In Breach
Chris Moyles
BBC Radio 1, 17 January, 14 and 20 February 2006, various times
Introduction
17 January 2006, approx 08:42
A listener objected to an item in which the presenter discussed people who urinated in the shower. He considered that the presenter’s reference to women who did this as “dirty whores” was unacceptable at this time of the morning.
14 February 2006 approx 08:21
A listener objected to a guest’s use of the words “piss” and “twat” during an interview.
20 February 2006 approx 09:52
Four complainants objected to the use of the word “*” by the presenter during a conversation with a listener who had called in. The presenter was heard to say: “You’ve got some kids from some *….” He immediately realised his mistake and made a number of apologies for his language.
We asked the BBC to comment in relation to the following Ofcom
Broadcasting Code
Rules:
1.3 Children must…be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.
1.5 Radio broadcasters must have particular regard to times when children are particularly likely to be listening.
1.14 The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening.
2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context…Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual
orientation).
Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist
in avoiding or minimising offence.
Response
The BBC assured us that since these programmes were broadcast, new procedures have been introduced by Radio 1. In future, presenters who accidentally swore or used other offensive language on air would be subject to disciplinary measures.
Should this happen twice within twelve months, the presenter would suffer a financial penalty. Programme teams had also been reminded of the existing guidance on how to deal with offensive language from contributors, which included the possibility of persistent offenders being taken off air.
The BBC said that the Controller of Radio 1 has raised the issue of language withthis presenter, who had given an assurance that his use of language would be more carefully managed. The Controller would continue, as part of his wider communication with presenters and staff, to emphasise the need to maintain a careful balance between creating an entertaining and authentic service for young listeners and using language that might cause harm and offence to others.
In specific reference to two of the three programmes in question, the BBC said:
14 February 2006
The BBC pointed out that the presenter had rebuked the guest for his language.
20 February 2006
The BBC wished to apologise for the offence caused by the language. It was made clear to the presenter and the executive producer immediately after the programme that such language was not acceptable. The presenter was himself upset and angry that he had made such a slip.
Decision
17 January 2006
The presenter invited female listeners to text in and say whether they urinated in the shower. A large number of texts were received and the presenter said: “Thank you very much ladies, I shouldn’t really say ladies – you all pee in the shower, you dirty whores.”. Although its use was clearly meant to be light-hearted, this is a word which research suggests is found offensive, particularly by women. Its use, while intended
to be humorous, was inappropriate for a breakfast programme that attracts a child audience and in breach of Rule 1.5.
14 February 2006
]The use of the words “piss” and “twat” was not altogether suitable in this context, when children were particularly likely to be listening. However, we acknowledge that the presenter had asked the guest not to swear. We also welcome the reminder given to production teams about how to deal with language from contributors. We consider the matter resolved.
20 February 2006
While the use of the word “*” was clearly a slip of the tongue and was followed by a number of apologies, it was nevertheless unacceptable, given the context and that audience figures suggest, as it was still half-term for some schools, 46000 children were still listening to the programme from 09:30-10:00. This was in breach of Rule 1.14.
Breach of 1.5, resolved and breach of 1.14 (respectively)
Taken from: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/ ... ssue62.pdf
Your comments? So its not such an easy job being a producer after all. I think this is a pretty good read and the responces from the bbc are interesting to read.
In Breach
Chris Moyles
BBC Radio 1, 17 January, 14 and 20 February 2006, various times
Introduction
17 January 2006, approx 08:42
A listener objected to an item in which the presenter discussed people who urinated in the shower. He considered that the presenter’s reference to women who did this as “dirty whores” was unacceptable at this time of the morning.
14 February 2006 approx 08:21
A listener objected to a guest’s use of the words “piss” and “twat” during an interview.
20 February 2006 approx 09:52
Four complainants objected to the use of the word “*” by the presenter during a conversation with a listener who had called in. The presenter was heard to say: “You’ve got some kids from some *….” He immediately realised his mistake and made a number of apologies for his language.
We asked the BBC to comment in relation to the following Ofcom
Broadcasting Code
Rules:
1.3 Children must…be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.
1.5 Radio broadcasters must have particular regard to times when children are particularly likely to be listening.
1.14 The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening.
2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context…Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual
orientation).
Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist
in avoiding or minimising offence.
Response
The BBC assured us that since these programmes were broadcast, new procedures have been introduced by Radio 1. In future, presenters who accidentally swore or used other offensive language on air would be subject to disciplinary measures.
Should this happen twice within twelve months, the presenter would suffer a financial penalty. Programme teams had also been reminded of the existing guidance on how to deal with offensive language from contributors, which included the possibility of persistent offenders being taken off air.
The BBC said that the Controller of Radio 1 has raised the issue of language withthis presenter, who had given an assurance that his use of language would be more carefully managed. The Controller would continue, as part of his wider communication with presenters and staff, to emphasise the need to maintain a careful balance between creating an entertaining and authentic service for young listeners and using language that might cause harm and offence to others.
In specific reference to two of the three programmes in question, the BBC said:
14 February 2006
The BBC pointed out that the presenter had rebuked the guest for his language.
20 February 2006
The BBC wished to apologise for the offence caused by the language. It was made clear to the presenter and the executive producer immediately after the programme that such language was not acceptable. The presenter was himself upset and angry that he had made such a slip.
Decision
17 January 2006
The presenter invited female listeners to text in and say whether they urinated in the shower. A large number of texts were received and the presenter said: “Thank you very much ladies, I shouldn’t really say ladies – you all pee in the shower, you dirty whores.”. Although its use was clearly meant to be light-hearted, this is a word which research suggests is found offensive, particularly by women. Its use, while intended
to be humorous, was inappropriate for a breakfast programme that attracts a child audience and in breach of Rule 1.5.
14 February 2006
]The use of the words “piss” and “twat” was not altogether suitable in this context, when children were particularly likely to be listening. However, we acknowledge that the presenter had asked the guest not to swear. We also welcome the reminder given to production teams about how to deal with language from contributors. We consider the matter resolved.
20 February 2006
While the use of the word “*” was clearly a slip of the tongue and was followed by a number of apologies, it was nevertheless unacceptable, given the context and that audience figures suggest, as it was still half-term for some schools, 46000 children were still listening to the programme from 09:30-10:00. This was in breach of Rule 1.14.
Breach of 1.5, resolved and breach of 1.14 (respectively)
Taken from: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/ ... ssue62.pdf
Your comments? So its not such an easy job being a producer after all. I think this is a pretty good read and the responces from the bbc are interesting to read.
